Consensual adult physical relations followed by marriage refusal justify anticipatory bail under Section 69 BNS.

The applicant and the prosecutrix were in a relationship for approximately eight months, during which they frequently met and established physical relations

The prosecution alleged that the applicant established these relations on the promise of marriage

On February 26, 2026, the prosecutrix discovered a marriage card indicating the applicant was to marry another woman, prompting her to file an FIR under Section 69 of the BNS at Police Station Thana Civil Line Rampur

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, he was unable to marry due to family opposition and caste differences, and the FIR was an afterthought following his refusal to marry

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in light of the allegations of sexual exploitation on the false pretext of marriage under Section 69 of the BNS

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail

Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which penalizes sexual intercourse by deceitful means or a promise to marry without intention to fulfill it

the procedural weight of statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS

the established legal distinction between a breach of a promise to marry and a false promise made with the sole intent to deceive

The court examined the case diary and the prosecutrix's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS

It observed that the prosecutrix is a major and was well-acquainted with the applicant for a significant period

The court reasoned that the facts suggested a consensual relationship between two adults that later failed to materialize into marriage

Because the FIR appeared to be a consequence of the relationship's breakdown rather than initial deceit, and noting that the applicant is a permanent resident with no likelihood of absconding, the court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted

The court maintained that the merits of the "false promise" versus "breach of promise" would be a matter for trial but found the current circumstances sufficient for bail

The court held that given the consensual nature of the long-term relationship between adults, the applicant was entitled to protection from arrest

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond and one surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, and submission of verified Aadhaar credentials